Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured behavior: results are ordered newest first and each row carries status, totals, items, fulfillments and tracking. No auth or rate-limit context, but the added behavioral detail is real.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single dense sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the match semantics and return shape following in priority order. No filler and nothing that fails to earn its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description usefully compensates by enumerating the returned fields, and the annotations carry the safety profile. It stops short of covering no-match behavior or error conditions, but for a read-only lookup it is close to complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by spelling out the conjunction rule ('then an order must match both') and the newest-first ordering with a 20-per-page cap, semantics the schema does not state.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb ('Find') and a precisely scoped resource ('the workspace's synced Shopify orders'), and states the three lookup keys (email, order number, or both). This scope distinguishes it from conversation-scoped siblings like get_conversation_orders and list_order_actions without needing to name them.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It conveys how to query (by email, order number, or both) and the AND semantics when both are supplied, which implies its usage. But it never states when to reach for this tool over siblings such as get_conversation_orders or search, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.